interesting-people message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [interesting-people Home]

Subject: [IP] Re: Any lawyers :-) Net Neutrality redux : AT&T caught with smoking gun in hand (and st



Begin forwarded message:

From: Kevin Werbach <werbach@wharton.upenn.edu>
Date: July 27, 2009 6:09:08 PM EDT
To: dave@farber.net
Cc: "ip" <ip@v2.listbox.com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Any lawyers :-) Net Neutrality redux : AT&T caught with smoking gun in hand (and st
IAAL. Section 230 was actually put into the 1996 Telecommunication Act as a counterweight to the Communications Decency Act (CDA) sections, which would have restricted "indecent" speech on the Internet. (Indecency and obscenity are different under the law.) One reason for Section 230 was the concern that, under Stratton Oakmont, ISPs would take on liability by complying with the CDA's mandates.
The Supreme Court overturned the CDA on free speech grounds. It left Section 230 intact. Hence, ISPs still have a broad safe harbor. And there is wonderful-sounding statutory language about the commitment to an open Internet, without the context for how it got there.
For those who care, I tell the whole story in my article, "Off the Hook" (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1371222) 

-k-

At 5:20 PM -0400 7/27/09, David Farber wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

From: Stagg Newman <<mailto:lsnewmanjr@yahoo.com>lsnewmanjr@yahoo.com>
Date: July 27, 2009 4:14:01 PM EDT
To: ip <<mailto:ip@v2.listbox.com>ip@v2.listbox.com>, <mailto:dave@farber.net >dave@farber.net Subject: Re: [IP] Net Neutrality redux : AT&T caught with smoking gun in hand (and st
IANAL. I do remember that part of the '96 Telecom Law dealing w/ restricting access 
to obscene material was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Do any of the lawyers on the list know if Section 230 is the part of the act found unconstitutional? And if so does that imply that Stratton Oakmont 
v. Prodigy is still valid precendent.
--- On Mon, 7/27/09, David Farber <<mailto:dave@farber.net>dave@farber.net > wrote: 


From: David Farber <<mailto:dave@farber.net>dave@farber.net>
Subject: [IP] Net Neutrality redux : AT&T caught with smoking gun in hand (and st 
To: "ip" <<mailto:ip@v2.listbox.com>ip@v2.listbox.com>
Date: Monday, July 27, 2009, 9:42 AM



Begin forwarded message:
From: "Paul Levy" <<http://us.mc651.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=plevy@citizen.org >plevy@citizen.org> 
Date: July 27, 2009 8:13:03 AM EDT
To: "David Farber" <<http://us.mc651.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=dave@farber.net >dave@farber.net> Subject: Re: [IP] PLEASE NOTE MY COMMENT -- Net Neutrality redux : AT&T caught with smoking gun in hand (and st
Although these issues are worth debating for policy reasons, the hint that by censoring traffic ATT risks being held liable for traffic it does not censor, by reference to Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy, does not suggest a realistic liability concern. Congress overruled Stratton Oakmont in 1996 when it enacted 47 U.S.C. § 230, which specifically states, among other things, that
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of- (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;.... 
<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html>http://www4law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html

Paul Alan Levy
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 588-1000
<http://www.citizen.org/litigation>http://www.citizen.org/litigation
David Farber <<http://us.mc651.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=dave@farber.net >dave@farber.net> 7/27/2009 12:59 AM >>>
I can not verify this , I use Comcast and it works there -- but it is widely reported on many sites such as <http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/26/att-blocks-4chan-this-is-going-to-get-ugly/ >http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/26/att-blocks-4chan-this-is-going-to-get-ugly/ 

Dave


Begin forwarded message:
From: jamie <<http://us.mc651.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose? to=j@arpa.com>j@arpa.com> 
Date: July 26, 2009 10:32:21 PM EDT
To: Dave Farber <<http://us.mc651.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=dave@farber.net >dave@farber.net> Cc: Jamie Rishaw <<http://us.mc651.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=j@arpa.com >j@arpa.com> Subject: Net Neutrality redux : AT&T caught with smoking gun in hand (and still in hand). 

[ok to post/repost/edit for brevity]


Dave,
It appears at AT&T (dial, DSL, black-label and my own home broadband service via u-verse product) has unilaterally and without explanation started blocking websites.
I have confirmed this with multiple tests. (It actually appears that these sites are being blocked at a local-global scale -- that is, each city/hub seems to have blackholes for the sites).
The biggest one is "<http://4chan.org/>4chan.org"'s image server - img.4chan. It's in Alexa's Top-1000 (#684). Internet Route-servers on AT&T's network as traceroutes from various cities (including Chicago, St Louis, multiple sites in Northern and Southern California as well as NYC) indicate that the sites have been blackholed.
And, annoyingly, this isn't the first time - they showed pro-Bush agenda just two years ago, censoring Pearl Jam anti-Bush-43 lyrics. 

 Questions arise:

 -1- What to do?
- AT&T has no right to censor or limit anything, period. (IMHO) (IANAL) (etc) - I'm now paying ~$150/mo for service with TV & Internet subject to filtering without permission? 

 -2- Is AT&T acting in a way that negates its 'Common Carrier' status?
-3- If AT&T is trying to "enforce" the CDA upon its subscribers' "eyeballs," doesnt it fall into the same dangerous ground that Prodigy did when it tried to police traffic? (Summary for the unfamiliar: The courts ruled that because Prodigy took a stance of monitoring (any) part of traffic, it was bound to "catch everything" and was thus no longer a carrier but a Publisher). (Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy) 


Comments/opinions/etc from you and readers appreciated.

TIA,

-Jamie Rishaw


>
ox.com/ 
>
<http://www.listbox.com/>

> <http://www.listbox.com/>


> <http://www.listbox.com>







-------------------------------------------

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [interesting-people Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC